posted
From Christina Riggs's "Unwrapping Ancient Egypt" (2014):
“Afrocentrism and mainstream Egyptology rarely meet and when they do, tensions can flare. I once spoke to a group of students, alumni, and community members at Manchester Metropolitan University [England], many of whom self-described as Afrocentrists. I was surprised at first to be heckled by the audience, but over the course of the discussion after my talk, it transpired that this was not because of anything I had said, but instead due to long-festering anger with the museum where I then worked. According to some of the audience members, a previous curator had also addressed the group, and, they said, described Diop’s work as “no better than pornography”” (p162).
You can disagree with Diop, but that sort of open contempt is unhinged. However, not that surprised.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
i certainly wouldn't trust some third-hand report from hecklers to be accurate at all, much less in context.
presumably meaning "unrealistic pandering to audience's wish-fulfillment fantasies" which certainly fits a lot of Afrocentric output. Diop seems sincere in the fine tradition of crankish scholarship though. but again who knows what context was or whether remotely accurate.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Crankish scholarship?
Outdated, yes, in a few places as is all work from the 1950's and 1960's.
How many of Diop's books have you read keeping in mind when they were written and what was accepted science at the time.
Remember his last work is nearly 40 years old. It only hints about molecular biology but puts us on notice it's just a tool and relies on interpretation. Interpretation is fed on worldview.
No, the cranks are geneticists who fall back on Arab Islamic and European Judeo- Christian purchases of enslaved Africans to explain even markers going back to the Neolithic.
Why? Because of their worldview. The worldview of the mainstream since the inseption of the science of anthropology which was conceived to prove a human hierarchy with white NE Europeans at the top.
Without the scholarship of Cheikh Anta Diop we would still have the Jewish Hollywood Egypt of today's cinema screen. He paved the way for those of us of African descent who dare reconnect our people to our collective histories, archaeology, cultures, religions, technologies, etc. instead of atomizing us into disporate admixed fragments.
posted
I don't think it's fair to call Diop's work "crankish" . He was pointing out undermined African roots in Egypt and used a lot of references.
quote: In 1946, at the age of 23, Diop went to Paris to study. He initially enrolled to study higher mathematics, but then enrolled to study philosophy in the Faculty of Arts of the Sorbonne. He gained his first degree (licence) in philosophy in 1948, then enrolled in the Faculty of Sciences, receiving two diplomas in chemistry in 1950.
In 1949, Diop registered a proposed title for a Doctor of Letters thesis, "The Cultural Future of African thought," under the direction of Professor Gaston Bachelard. In 1951 he registered a second thesis title "Who were the pre-dynastic Egyptians" under Professor Marcel Griaule. He completed his thesis on pre-dynastic Egypt in 1954 but could not find a jury of examiners for it: he later published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture. In 1956 he re-registered a new proposed thesis for Doctor of Letters with the title "The areas of matriarchy and patriarchy in ancient times." From 1956, he taught physics and chemistry in two Paris lycees as an assistant master, before moving to the College de France. In 1957 he registered his new thesis title "Comparative study of political and social systems of Europe and Africa, from Antiquity to the formation of modern states." The new topics did not relate to ancient Egypt but were concerned with the forms of organisation of African and European societies and how they evolved. He obtained his doctorate in 1960.[9]
In 1953, he first met Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Marie Curie's son-in-law, and in 1957 Diop began specializing in nuclear physics at the Laboratory of Nuclear Chemistry of the College de France which Frederic Joliot-Curie ran until his death in 1958, and the Institut Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris. He ultimately translated parts of Einstein's Theory of Relativity into his native Wolof.[10]
According to Diop's own account, his education in Paris included History, Egyptology, Physics, Linguistics, Anthropology, Economics, and Sociology.[4][11] In Paris, Diop studied under André Aymard, professor of History and later Dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Paris and he said that he had "gained an understanding of the Greco-Latin world as a student of Gaston Bachelard, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, André Leroi-Gourhan, and others". Diop said that he "acquired proficiency in such diverse disciplines as rationalism, dialectics, modern scientific techniques, prehistoric archeology and so on." Diop also claimed to be "the only Black African of his generation to have received training as an Egyptologist" and "more importantly" he "applied this encyclopedic knowledge to his researches on African history."[12]
In 1948 Diop edited with Madeleine Rousseau, a professor of art history, a special edition of the journal Musée vivant, published by the Association populaire des amis des musées (APAM). APAM had been set up in 1936 by people on the political left wing to bring culture to wider audiences. The special edition of the journal was on the occasion of the centenary of the abolition of slavery in the French colonies and aimed to present an overview of issues in contemporary African culture and society. Diop contributed an article to the journal: "Quand pourra-t-on parler d’une renaissance africaine" (When we will be able to speak of an African Renaissance?). He examined various fields of artistic creation, with a discussion of African languages, which, he said, would be the sources of regeneration in African culture. He proposed that African culture should be rebuilt on the basis of ancient Egypt, in the same way that European culture was built upon the legacies of ancient Greece and Rome.[13] In his 1954 thesis, Diop argued that ancient Egypt had been populated by Black people. He specified that he used the terms "negro", "black", "white" and "race" as "immediate givens" in the Bergsonian sense, and went on to suggest operational definitions of these terms.[14] He said that the Egyptian language and culture had later been spread to West Africa. When he published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture (Negro Nations and C
Diop had since his early days in Paris been politically active in the Rassemblement Démocratique Africain (RDA), an African nationalist organisation led by Félix Houphouët-Boigny. He was general secretary of the RDA students in Paris from 1950 to 1953.[17] Under his leadership the first post-war pan-African student congress was organized in 1951. Importantly it included not only francophone Africans, but English-speaking ones as well. The RDA students continued to be highly active in politicizing the anti-colonial struggle and popularized the slogan "National independence from the Sahara to the Cape, and from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic."[18] The movement identified as a key task restoring the African national consciousness, which they argued had been warped by slavery and colonialism. Diop, inspired by the efforts of Aimé Césaire toward these ends, but not being a literary man himself, took up the call to rebuild the African personality from a strictly scientific, socio-historical perspective. He was keenly aware of the difficulties that such a scientific effort would entail and warned that "It was particularly necessary to avoid the pitfall of facility. It could seem to tempting to delude the masses engaged in a struggle for national independence by taking liberties with scientific truth, by unveiling a mythical, embellished past. Those who have followed us in our efforts for more than 20 years know now that this was not the case and that this fear remained unfounded."[19] Diop was highly critical of "the most brilliant pseudo-revolutionary eloquence that ignores the need" for rebuilding the African national consciousness "which must be met if our people are to be reborn culturally and politically."[20]
Diop believed that the political struggle for African independence would not succeed without acknowledging the civilizing role of the African, dating from ancient Egypt.[20] He singled out the contradiction of "the African historian who evades the problem of Egypt".[20]
In 1960, upon his return to Senegal, he continued what would be a lifelong political struggle. Diop would in the course of over 25 years found three political parties that formed the major opposition in Senegal. The first, "Le Bloc des Masses Sénégalaises" (BMS), was formed in 1961. By 1962 Diop's party working on the ideas enumerated in Black Africa: the economic and cultural basis for a federated state became a serious threat to the regime of then President Léopold Senghor. Diop was subsequently arrested and thrown in jail where he nearly died. The party was shortly thereafter banned for opposing Senghor's efforts to consolidate power in his own hands
posted
i have not read most of Diop's work. i am thinking of some of his linguistic stuff which i have gone through and is classic crank linguistics. which many many scholars have engaged in mind you.
not saying all of his work was wrong - i'd have no capacity to judge most of it even if i'd read it - scholars can be sound or even brilliant in one field and go off the rails in another. that is part of the tradition of crank scholarship i was referring to.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You have the UNESCO link. Linguists are on the panel. What do they and the report author say?
Of course you're right Diop was wrong on several things but what counts is where he's right and his advice to scholars on awareness and methodologies.
Hey, if you wanna see Diop as a crank that's your right to your opinion. I have to accept your personal linguistic exam led your conclusion.
posted
Yea, a lot of Diop's work is outdated and he has made some unrealistic claims that sometimes goes against Africana(such as Berber is European). However... To say his overall work is "crankish" is a bit unfair. Heck some of his works was way ahead mainstream anthropology at the time.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it quite perplexing people still cite Mr. Diop in their scholarship. In fact, it puzzles me Afrocentric circles like the Black Conscious community yet reference outmoded and no-longer-valid scholarly work. Who still cites "They came before Columbus" which by the way is unpeered work?
Posts: 115 | From: NYC | Registered: Feb 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
Posts: 115 | From: NYC | Registered: Feb 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with many of Diop's ideas (like others said, he is outdated), but I respect him for stimulating greater academic interest in Egypt's African heritage and connections from an Afrocentric perspective. Of course, the whole conversation predates him by over two centuries, but you could say he reawakened it. The same for Martin Bernal and maybe van Sertima (although the latter is better known for his claims about African ties with the Olmecs). If nothing else, these individuals have been good at grabbing both academic and public attention and directing them to our point of view. But yes, one can't limit their reading to these few authors.
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn’t lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.
Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, `We don’t even know what a race is.’ What that means is, they do know what a yellow man is, they do know what a white man is. Despite the fact that the white race and the yellow race are derivatives of the black which, itself, was the first to exist as a human race, now we do not want know what it is. If Africans fall into that trap, they’ll be going around in circles. They must understand the trap, understand the stakes.
It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated.
-- Interview with Diop conducted by Charles Finch III in Dakar, 1986 .
This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
They attack Diop's work but they are never specific. people accept this hogwash because they have not studied Diop's work and therefore fail to present counter evidence disputing his work.
A good example is the work of Schuh The paper by R.G. Schuh web page has not disconfirmed the work of Diop. Diop presented almost 400 wolof-Egyptian cognates and Schuh only presents a handful of examples in which he claims Diop is wrong. No one except a novice who had not read
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
The material in these books is explained in detail and Diop presents many examples in support of his proposition.
If you read the Schuh article seriously you discover that he maintains that there may be "vague cultural or physical world connection[s]" (p.9), but Diop was wrong overall. Either there were connections or there were no connections. You can't ride the fence on this issue if you are calling a researcher's work false.
Schuh's article was just a bias view on the part of the author regarding Diop's work.
Dr. Schuh recommends that Diop would have been able to confirm his view of a African connection to Egyptian by first studying the sound resemblances in Niger-Kordofanian through reconstruction. This is ludicrious.
The Indo-European language connection was not confirmed as a result of reconstructing proto-languages and then comparing them to proto- Greek and proto-Sanskrit. In fact when this language family was proposed the ideas of constructing proto-languages was unknown.
Schuh ends this piece discussing the fact that the only relationship between an African language and Egyptian was Chadic. This was an interesting view, given the fact that the reference list indicates that his only published works are related to the Chadic people.
This is also interesting because he did not present any Chadic reconstructions to support his theory, the requirement he demanded Diop present before Diop's views could find acceptance by Schuh and the linguistic community.
I am sure that if Schuh would have wrote on any other topic his paper would not have been published.
Publishers are quick to publish articles attacking Afrocentric studies because it is popular for liberals and conservatives alike to attack this group. I recommend you read the books below:
Diop,C.A. (1977). Parentè gènètique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et des languues Negro-Africaines. Dakar: Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire.
Diop,C.A. (1983). Nouvelles recherches sur l'egyptien ancien et les langues Negro-Africaine Modernes.
Read the books yourself instead of taking the word of Schuh.
Today the anti-Diop cabal believe that genetics has proven much of Diop's work to be false. This view is unfounded. Everyday it is becoming clear that the Egyptians shared many haplogroups with West Africans, especially Y-chromosomes E and R1, and mtDNA H, M and U.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:but again who knows what context was or whether remotely accurate.
The comparison with pornography in the quote I provided is specific. In what context would such a reference be acceptable?
With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF??????? These clowns attacking Dr.Cheikh Anta Diop,whether so-called museum experts or folks who chant outdated as a mantra for not having read any of Diop's works need to actually read books not just web No better than porn and crankish! Hell on this site the Amazigh or Berbers often have posters thinking becuse some of them are pale skinned its due 2 Eurasian admixture. a lot of whites were sent their as slaves and some whites invaded and stayed in Morocco,Tunisia,Algeria etc. Just being African does not mean your skin is black as crude oil.I thought posters here were brighter than that at least more than forum biodiversity posters. Attacking Diop's work without reading any of it is inane & preposterous.
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: WTF??????? These clowns attacking Dr.Cheikh Anta Diop,whether so-called museum experts or folks who chant outdated as a mantra for not having read any of Diop's works need to actually read books not just web No better than porn and crankish! Hell on this site the Amazigh or Berbers often have posters thinking becuse some of them are pale skinned its due 2 Eurasian admixture. a lot of whites were sent their as slaves and some whites invaded and stayed in Morocco,Tunisia,Algeria etc. Just being African does not mean your skin is black as crude oil.I thought posters here were brighter than that at least more than forum biodiversity posters. Attacking Diop's work without reading any of it is inane & preposterous.
Sad I know! France also honored him after he passed.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
We know why folks would call him crankish. They cant stand the idea that Africans should and would dare to study and write about their own history without European "authorization" and "approval"......
And as Turkuler rightly said this is all about world view. Africans telling their history as Africans is not the same as Europeans going around the entire planet and pretending to tell everybody else about their history: (which Europeans in many cases destroyed).
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
yeah, they don't want to explain their field of scholarship to you in detail and then have you ignore it anyway. while doing the same thing with the ancient aliens guy and the white gods guy and the lost tribes of israel guy who are also emailing them.
try going over to some forum that has nothing to do with Africa and debating people with alternative views, especially about language. try going to Eupedia and refuting the Albanian guy who is claiming that there's no such thing as Indo-European and in fact all those words come from Albanian. find one of those guys who thinks that Sumerian is Turkish, or Mayan is Chinese, or Cherokee is Greek, and see how that goes. and maybe you will get a strange sense of deja vu as you are told that the mainstream scholars are ignoring this obvious truth because of their bias against insert ethnic group and how they are suppressing the true glorious history of insert ethnic group.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
This is an example of where Diop was and will remain ahead of his time. Perfect example in play here. Find a black man in the Sphinx and it's 'lets define black'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM_NQebQLkQ&t=37sPosts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE] This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Agreed. Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt." Just when you thought it'd die... But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white. Oh they're then "olive" and still count as part "white history"
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: “The creators of Stonehenge appeared Mediterranean, with olive-hued skin, dark hair and eyes.”
quote:With regards to Diop being crankish, the comments above from other posters suffice. I would however cite issues with the scholarship of those academics who have written papers ‘critiquing’ Diop, such as Juan Castilllos (Egyptologist) and Alain Froment (physical anthropologist). Both were evasive when I contacted them directly.
yeah, they don't want to explain their field of scholarship to you in detail and then have you ignore it anyway. while doing the same thing with the ancient aliens guy and the white gods guy and the lost tribes of israel guy who are also emailing them.
try going over to some forum that has nothing to do with Africa and debating people with alternative views, especially about language. try going to Eupedia and refuting the Albanian guy who is claiming that there's no such thing as Indo-European and in fact all those words come from Albanian. find one of those guys who thinks that Sumerian is Turkish, or Mayan is Chinese, or Cherokee is Greek, and see how that goes. and maybe you will get a strange sense of deja vu as you are told that the mainstream scholars are ignoring this obvious truth because of their bias against insert ethnic group and how they are suppressing the true glorious history of insert ethnic group.
You are fixated on his linguistics and that is not by far his main influence.
His main influence was making the argument that Egypt was primarily black African
The more influential afrocentric scholar in regard to linguistics is Théophile Obenga who is alive today and is professor emeritus in the Africana Studies Center at San Francisco State University
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is an interesting quote he is arguing that Africans have been exploited on the basis of phenotype so that Africans must not discard the concept of race
because if the concept of race has been proven to be an effective weapon used against people then the people that it was used against should have the right to use that same weapon.
Therefore if someone in the oppressor class who used the concept of race to achieve their position but then has that same weapon used on them they should not be able to take refuge in genotype and then race doesn't matter
Agreed. Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt." Just when you thought it'd die... But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white. Oh they're then "olive" and still count as part "white history"
I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype. The analysis of Cheddar man is a prime example of how genetics is not fragile, it is the opposite, able to overturn assumptions about what the early Europeans looked like.
Genetics methods are also constantly improving.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Genetics seems to be the last fragile frontier for "white Egypt."
Not at all. Ramesses III's YDNA was predicted to be of the African haplogroup E which is also the most common African American haplogroup. DNATribes, while not a peer reviewed journal did their own analysis of Amarna DNA based on JAMA data form Hawas and stated that the Amarna were of vastly African ancestry
However the DNA doesn't care about politics. So when you start looking at it you can't expect it to take sides and make one side happy all the time
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
sure, lioness. i have no opinion about that part, i haven't read what Diop has to say (beyond the occasional quote) and trying to sort out the physical anthropology gives me a headache. linguistic crankery on the other hand is in abundant supply and easy to find for purposes of comparison.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: African Linguistics is a fucking mess in general... It's quite obvious when one remembers when Ehret and Obnga met and exchanged Crankish Ideas. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...lol
lol, yeah, from the POV of linguists who study Eurasian languages it's like all Altaic and Nostratic at the higher levels of grouping and everyone is kind of airily throwing around these classifications without even being able to distinguish a cognate from a loan. which they totally admit (well not Ehret) but do it anyway.
but nitty-gritty lower level stuff seems basically fine AFAICT.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Were they?
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: In The Independent:
"Around 90 per cent of Britain’s population was replaced 4,400 years ago by an influx of Beaker Practitioners, shortly after Stonehenge was constructed. This genetic shift brought in genes for pale skin and lighter eyes.
“The Neolithic people who built Stonehenge – and who had a greater genetic similarity with Neolithic Iberians than with those from Central Europe – almost disappear and are replaced by the populations from the Beaker Culture from the Netherlands and Germany,” said Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, a palaeogenomics expert at Barcelona’s Institut de Biologia Evolutiva, who co-authored one of the studies."
"Professor Barry Cunliffe, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford and co-author of one of the studies, said ancient DNA analysis was poised to revolutionise the field of archaeology, and described their results as “mind-blowing”.
“They are going to upset people, but that is part of the excitement of it,” he said."
posted
yes. modern *British* are mostly not descended from Neolithic *British*, but they *do* have a large proportion of ancestry from Neolithic farmers on the mainland.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But don't tell them that the genotypes of Neolithic Europeans, Euros making stone henge, had nothing to do with their genetic ancestors, nor were they white.
huh? Neolithic Europeans are a big part of modern European ancestry, even in Northern Europe. and sure they were 'white', unless you mean strictly North European type pale.
Cheddar man was white?
quote:Originally posted by capra: yes. modern *British* are mostly not descended from Neolithic *British*, but they *do* have a large proportion of ancestry from Neolithic farmers on the mainland.
10% is large?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheddar Man is not Neolithic he is WHG, the 10% is for *British* Neolithic not all Neolithic. and there's a hundred other places to discuss this in great detail if you like.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
True, but Diop is talking about race. He's arguing against using genetics when making a racial evaluation because it's possible for people to be genetically more related to people of other races. He predicted that many racists try to combine biology/genetics and race, even when people's genetics don't decide over their phenotype how they are treated.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I disagree with Diop and you. Genetics is not a is fragile frontier. It is the future and will gradually replace older skin deep phenotypical racial paradigms. While people might try to manipulate the interpretation of DNA test results (Planck Institute disregarding YDNA) , genetics is cutting edge science and goes much deeper into human biology than phenotype and also includes phenotype.
Yes but "race" isn't decided by that. Your phenotyope determines how you are treated more than anything. IDK how you're interpreting his comments but he's talking about "race" as far as I can see.
how a person is treated should not be combined with biology
True, but Diop is talking about race. He's arguing against using genetics when making a racial evaluation because it's possible for people to be genetically more related to people of other races. He predicted that many racists try to combine biology/genetics and race, even when people's genetics don't decide over their phenotype how they are treated.
The idea he is endorsing is that people should be treated according to their phenotype, so don't discard the use of race but a particular treatment should be correlated to the proper race and it has not been
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No he is saying that people ARE treated according to their phenotype, that it's not an ideal but a reality. Diop was arguing that when it is not convenient for whites to discuss race whites will often resort to proclaiming their colorblindness in scientific research. But then we get "true negroes," and discussing blackness under the table with coded language. It avoids dealing with Diop's interest in directly discussing the race of the Egyptians, paints researchers who do so negatively but allows those who want to talk about it the ability to speak in a "safe space."
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
People make this complex. There would be no William Leakey in East Africa without British colonization. There would be no Rosetta Stone without the French INVASION of Egypt. There would be no King Tut without British imperialism in Egypt. And there would be no Benin Bronzes in the British Museums if not for British imperialism in West Africa.
This isn't simply an issue of "scholarship". It is an issue of colonization and conquest which gave rise to scholarship around the planet.
This is why most of the artifacts and images of "dead" cultures are in European museums around the world....
Diop was living in French Colonized West Africa. He had to go to French Universities and at the time having Africans in French Universities was probably rare. Not only did he study Egypt but he studied pre-colonial West Africa. He had to fight against the grain to gain his education and then use it to tell a history of Africa that went against the OVERT colonial/racist narrative of the time.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Diop was a credentialed scientist. Produce a quote where he argued against using molecular biology.
Fact of the matter, Diop himself used the mb available in his day pre-1981.
It's the interpretation not the tool.
Independent thinking African and Black researchers accept the tools and use them but our interpretation and discussion of investigative results will be wary of the same old time honored institutional racialism of the white supremacist founders of anthropology; i.e., • out of the East always light • we can't define black • black skinned whites • Hamitic Hypothesis • true negro • negroids (admixed true negroes) no matter how new, bright, and shiny the wrapper.
Arabs are text book whites. They are commonly called niggers. Indians are textbook whites. In day to day Western world life nobody regards them white.
A generation without struggle (no overt colonialism, apartheid, Jim Crow) imagines the playing field is level and we can forget the white supremacist origins of these sciences and the ramifications of 5 generations of it in university studies. Of course it impacted every student who's now out there conducting research. And they don't even know it or why for instance they rely on slavery to explain true negro genetics anywhere outside Negroland.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tukuler who are you asking your initial question to? I can't speak for everyone but I wasn't saying that Diop was against the use of molecular biology in science. What he did say, was that molecular biology does. not. prove. racial affiliation. Not over other data, anyway. He already states you have people that are black that are genetically closer to Swedes than Peter Botha. So if he's saying black people can at the level of their genes be more closely related to non blacks than other blacks, trying to use genetics to prove racial affiliations makes no sense. Diop says the phenotype is the most important aspect of proving racial identity not the genotype.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes. One particular Zulu may be closer to a Boer but by no means will the Zulu population be close to the population of the Netherlands.
Per Diop (1981/1991) p36 predominantly the former are Sutter and the latter are Kel by hemotypological data.
At the least he trusted those biological markers.
And you're absolutely right.
He doesn't use mb himself (I didn't check in Great African Thinkers 1986). He went by what the eye can see. Even his science of counting melanin granules is an extension of visual impression quantified.
If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn’t lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality.
Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
Your example is not working for me. I'm trying to think of a different example that would fit your intent but it's not that easy.
Genetics in a historical context often leads us in more of a geographically oriented outcome as per a person's ancestors than strictly a phenotypical profile.
Look at how many people are getting their DNA tested these days. There is probably going to be more emphasis on that even on the layman's social level than we are seeing now. We watch youtube videos now where people get excited about there DNA test results and their complexities rather than just going by these simplistic color based racial categories "black" or "white".
And there is going to be more and more improved transportation therefore more so called "mixing" going on and these "do you consider yourself black or white" type of questions will become increasing over-simplified socially.
You say physical appearance is a reality but so what? It's a reality as to how people are socially categorized but it doesn't mean biologists have to classify people according to social conventions and ignore DNA. It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.
And even more so when we take into account that form an historical perspective the social conventions as per categorizing people ethnically were different and always highly subjective
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mr. Diop, I know this is 2018 and you haven't been on the scene for about 30 years but now that your back are you sure you can find a black person who, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha? Peter Botha was of Dutch extraction and the highest YDNA frequency there is R-M269. The highest frequency YDNA for Swedes is haplogroup I1, that is believed to have originated in Northern Europe. The ancestor is I-M170. That's big in Norway, the Caucases, Croatia. It's one of the most European haplogroups. The Dutch, your Peter Botha types are also heavy with the Hap I . That haplogroup is virtually unknown in indigenous Africans.
I think you're taking what he says way too literally. What he means is that people can be more closely related genetically, to people of other races and that genetics and race aren't the same thing. Weren't the Egyptian samples peppered with haplogroup I? Even if they were northern Egyptians that had faced Levanite immigration, the mainstream media releases are implying the data is representative of all of Egypt by excluding needed qualifiers to describe the results. So if we're to assume this data is representative of the south, how does that compare against the morphological data that shows physical features that many associate with "blackness." The situation is either: The southern Egyptians are genetically akin to (some) other Africans and are morphologically "black" or they're exactly what Diop is saying in this situation. Same with say an Adamanese. An Adamanese is going to be seen as black by people who see them. That doesn't mean they're closely related to African blacks.
quote: Genetics in a historical context often leads us in more of a geographically oriented outcome as per a person's ancestors than strictly a phenotypical profile.
But identifying with sex, ancestry, race, is all subjective in it's importance. All can be argued to have a history too. What I mean by that is that people with the same haplogroups have a history and people with certain features have a history. Both groups have had people who preceded them that'd fit under the same category of similar genes and features that did stuff.
quote:Look at how many people are getting their DNA tested these days. There is probably going to be more emphasis on that even on the layman's social level than we are seeing now.
True but people don't need a DNA test to tell them what race they are, so why would it make them excited? They can personally experience treatment based on their appearance for that. He's not denying anyone the right to find out other aspects of human beings. So I really don't know what's with the false dichotomy. You don't have to look at morphological data and say that because you know someone's race, knowing other parts of who they are physically is not relevant.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: We watch youtube videos now where people get excited about there DNA test results and their complexities rather than just going by these simplistic color based racial categories "black" or "white".
Well yes, because most people learn their race early in life. That's not going to be "new" for individuals, but it can be new when it comes to discussing ancient people who we never got the chance to meet.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And there is going to be more and more improved transportation therefore more so called "mixing" going on and these "do you consider yourself black or white" type of questions will become increasing over-simplified socially.
When women were being called witches because their eyes turned red, scientists showed and explained to people that it was because of how people cooked in their houses which changed the color, not demonic possession. A scientist interested in historical accuracy of the behavior and achievements of people with a certain morphological types, which is at the foundation of anti black discrimination is not "wrong." Anyone else putting together data on race is not wrong either, simply because we may one day get over race. Why don't you complain about how useless a review of race is when people put together data on unarmed black shootings, educational outcomes,health etc? After all you're saying soon there will be so much mixing no one will care. But while everyone's waiting for your racial utopia, what do human beings do in the meantime? Accept foul treatment on historical falsehood because someday maybe people will stop believing in it? And whose going to take the first step in showing it's false using science if they're heckled at every turn with this "soon it'll be over anyway" talk. If a scientist wants to tackle that, then there's nothing wrong with that. Diop is not demanding for every scientist to drop what they're doing to focus on race.
quote: You say physical appearance is a reality but so what? It's a reality as to how people are socially categorized but it doesn't mean biologists have to classify people according to social conventions and ignore DNA. It's better in my opinion that an effort is made to keep racial politics out of bio-anthropological analysis.
There you go again: Diop's NOT telling anyone they cannot classify people some other way. You can be a woman, black, etc at the same time. What he's talking about is DNA being used to determine race. DNA being used to understand humanity outside of racial categorization is fine, using DNA to try to prove races against morphological data is not. The only reason why we're even seeing genetic data in race debates is because racists want to hold onto blacks being defective genetically, since their religious appeals harbor no interest to the public anymore.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oshun, in every comment you've made above you have failed to realize that most posters in Egyptology do not even believe in race
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Diop wasn't talking race as a biological construct, just that people can review the morphology of ancient humans to make social (racial) determinations the way they do with today's people. I'm talking about what the man said and the validity of his statements. I couldn't care less whether or not most posters agree. Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct. What you are saying is that when racists say that people with certain morphologies haven't done anything besides be slaves and eat each other, science is incapable of determining whether or not that's true. I don't agree with that. Science is very capable of answering that question.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct.
Social constructs are not real
If a group of people say someone is a possessed by the devil and they attack the person it's a social construct but it isn't real.
Something isn't real because a group of people say it is and take action
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one was saying social constructs are real biological constructs. Otherwise we'd call them biological constructs, not social constructs. However social constructs often rest on beliefs about the tangible environment and there are many ways scientists can test those belief systems. Science can test the validity of the beliefs we hold about nature of mankind that shapes the way our society moves.
If a scientist can prove that a woman who has red eyes from cooking in her home all day is not demonically possessed through showing how the eyes change color because of how she cooks, why not use science to demonstrate this, rather than say "oh well social constructs aren't real" while she endures hell being branded a witch? While it's not always possible for belief systems to face scientific scrutiny, some can be tested. Creating socoieconomic systems that are partial against people with certain features because of the belief they cannot create a civilization CAN be studied. You CAN review remains of ancient people, you CAN find people who had black features creating civilizations, you CAN prove false the assumption that certain features mean you cannot achieve civilization. I don't see anything wrong with Diop being interested in doing so, he's not trying to force other people to do it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Most mainstream scientists don't believe in race as a valid biological construct but it is a very real social construct.
Social constructs are not real
If a group of people say someone is a possessed by the devil and they attack the person it's a social construct but it isn't real.
Something isn't real because a group of people say it is and take action
Social constructs are real for all intents & purposes. Thinking otherwise makes you look as if you're living in a playworld of your own construction.
Posts: 117 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No one has illustrated his work is outdated. And his linguistic studies have stood the test of time. Cite the papers where his work has been disputed with actual counter evidence.
Wikipedia provides several scholarly sources.
You know damn well any moron can edit or delete content on Wkipedia. Saying wiki provides sources doesn’t annswr the question.
Posts: 191 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic